Obradovich: Immigration, gun issues keep Grassley in spotlight

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, left, pauses after a brief but heated response to remarks by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., not pictured, during the committee's hearing on immigration reform, Monday, April 22, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington. Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. is at right.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has been all over the national news the past couple of weeks, first as a GOP standard-bearer on gun-control legislation and this week as a torch-bearer in the increasingly fiery rhetoric over immigration reform in the wake of the Boston bombings.

That may have surprised some Iowans who aren't used to seeing Grassley leading the charge for the GOP on issues like guns and immigration. Although he has long been involved in both topics over the years, he's more often taken the point position on issues related to taxes and other financial matters.

His recent prominence on guns and immigration is directly related to his status as ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley has been a member of the committee throughout his Senate tenure. But until recently, his top leadership role was as former chairman and ranking Republican member of the Finance Committee.

He moved his leadership position over to the Judiciary Committee in 2011. Under Senate rules, that move kept his options open to chair either that committee or Finance should the GOP retake the majority. After the 2012 elections, with Democrats still in charge, Grassley opted to stay as ranking Republican on Judiciary.

The move may be a mixed blessing for Grassley in light of the heightened political scrutiny surrounding gun control and immigration.

You could hardly turn on cable news this week without seeing Grassley's testy exchange with Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Schumer, speaking at a hearing Monday on immigration reform, chastised those who would use the Boston tragedy as an "excuse for not doing a bill or delaying it many months or years."

Grassley interrupted, shouting: "I didn't say that!"

Schumer responded, "I didn't say you did."

Grassley repeated his objection two more times, with Schumer repeating his disclaimer each time. It was the kind of exchange that might have happened in the back seat of the car between my brother and me when he was 4 and I was 6.

Both senators were right, to a point. Schumer did not name Grassley or any other person directly in his comments. Grassley, however, had been criticized directly by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who accused him of trying to politicize the bombing as a way to stall immigration reform.

Grassley did not suggest slowing down or derailing discussion on immigration, however. During the hearing, he said, "While we don't yet know the immigration status of the people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system."

The Iowa senator did not back away from that sentiment on Wednesday, but he told reporters it "emphasizes the importance of passing an immigration bill." He highlighted the need for better border security in light of emerging details about the travel of bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev between Russia and the United States.

Grassley noted questions raised this week about how federal agencies had handled information they received from Russian authorities about Tsarnaev. "We aren't connecting the dots within our government, and this is a major flaw that needs to be corrected," Grassley said.

Still, the exchange fueled Grassley's critics, who also noted the senator's role in blocking a bipartisan proposal to expand firearms background checks to gun shows and Internet sales. Grassley joined with Texas Republican Ted Cruz to propose an alternative measure that left the so-called gun show loophole in place. Both proposals failed on the Senate floor last week, and the fate of the gun-control bill is still uncertain.

Grassley has been on the other end of the wagging finger when it comes to politicizing tragedy. He said in January that tragic shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Tucson, Ariz., "should not be used to put forward every gun-control measure that has been floating around for years."

The fact is, all of these cases can and should inform policy debates, although not before actual facts are available and not to the exclusion of considerations that don't happen to be driving headlines.

So far, Grassley seems to be sticking with the base of his party rather than championing bipartisan attempts at a solution. To the extent he aligns himself with allies like Cruz, a tea party favorite, he runs the risk of alienating Iowa independents who have long been willing to vote for both Grassley and liberal Democrat Tom Harkin.

In the Washington Beltway, where face time on cable is a valuable commodity, Grassley's star turn is worth the gamble. He'll be better off, however, if his show is more like "Law and Order" than "Grumpy Old Men."